An article I wrote about the radio communication options in the USA

[OklahomaOverland]

So, I wrote a blog post on communication options in the USA. It is being received well. Here is a link for anyone who is interested. https://oklahoma122.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/radio-communications-on-the-trail-in-the-usa/

 

[jsek29]

Great article. For those of us just starting to dip our toes into the radio comms pool, this clearly and concisely pulls together the pros and cons of each of the different radio options available. One drawback to amateur radio that no one talks about is the overwhelming complication of programming and connecting with others on the trail using these radios. They all seem to need programming to use, and a computer and special cable to program them. Everyone talks about the test as the big hurdle for people getting into amateur radio, but i really think it is the complicated radio units and unbelievably vast array of radio units available.

“Where to start?”
“Which band to use?”
“I have to program it!?”

For people that just want a way to stay in touch with their friends on the trail, the amateur radio world can seem a complicated, expensive, and tough to decipher.

The GRMS band seems a perfect answer to this especially with mobile units coming out with more Tx power, I hope that others get into this service.

 

[Ray_G]

The GRMS band seems a perfect answer to this especially with mobile units coming out with more Tx power, I hope that others get into this service.

Concur.
While I'm also a HAM, after a friend got one of the Midland MXT's I decided it was time to get a GMRS lic and just installed an MXT115 into my LR3; looking forward to replacing it with the upcoming MXT275 already.

 

[jsek29]

Concur.
While I'm also a HAM, after a friend got one of the Midland MXT's I decided it was time to get a GMRS lic and just installed an MXT115 into my LR3; looking forward to replacing it with the upcoming MXT275 already.

What about the MXT275 makes it better than the 115? They seem pretty similar to me.

I personally like the MTX400, just for the reach.

 

[Ray_G]

What about the MXT275 makes it better than the 115? They seem pretty similar to me.

I personally like the MTX400, just for the reach.

In my application the 115 is housed in the upper glove box; so the MXT275 will allow operation solely from the handset (leaving the brain in the same place, likely the same bracket, in the glove box).

The 400 is def nice and I think we will end up with at least one at some point; but for my application in WV we'll likely be better served playing with GMRS repeaters since more power can't fix line of sight.

 

[Martinjmpr]

One drawback to amateur radio that no one talks about is the overwhelming complication of programming and connecting with others on the trail using these radios. They all seem to need programming to use, and a computer and special cable to program them. Everyone talks about the test as the big hurdle for people getting into amateur radio, but i really think it is the complicated radio units and unbelievably vast array of radio units available.

.
I've mentioned it several times here. And sad to say I don't think there's a real solution. The manufacturers know that their "base" customers are basically "techies" who like all the gadgets and settings and options. And they know those customers will pay more for radios with those features.
.
The people who just want a plug-and-play, push-to-talk simple radio option (IOW, those who want something like CB with pre-set channels) are not likely to spend a lot of money on equipment and therefore the manufacturers don't have any incentive to cater to those customers. As crappy as CB is (and it is crappy!) it is "good enough" for most casual users and that's why it's still popular with off-roaders even though it really relies on 1950's (at best) technology.

 

[comptiger5000]

Simplicity and low barrier of entry for others that I'm likely to need to communicate with led me to running both CB and GMRS in the Jeep. CB with a good antenna setup, etc. can get respectable range. And it's cheap. GMRS is a bit better and has better options for handhelds when needed.

I'll probably get into a HAM license at some point, but I haven't gone for it yet.

 

[Hillbilly Heaven]

Being a ham myself I will concur that GMRS makes the better option when you are on the trail with a mixed group of individuals. Ease of entry and operation for those less technically inclined or for those that want plug and play. CB is ancient less efficient tech. Trail leaders and guides should op for the MXT400 and a permanent mount MXTA11 antenna. This will big help when others in the group are using handhelds. The increased gain of the antenna helps both ways, so it will make it easier to hear the weak handhelds.

 

[comptiger5000]

Being a ham myself I will concur that GMRS makes the better option when you are on the trail with a mixed group of individuals. Ease of entry and operation for those less technically inclined or for those that want plug and play. CB is ancient less efficient tech. Trail leaders and guides should op for the MXT400 and a permanent mount MXTA11 antenna. This will big help when others in the group are using handhelds. The increased gain of the antenna helps both ways, so it will make it easier to hear the weak handhelds.

I didn't go for the big MXT400 (couldn't justify the price relative to how much I use the thing). But the MXT115 with a big Comet SBB-5 antenna on the front fender is fairly capable. The range on the (ancient tech) CB is respectable too if you can handle running a big antenna (I run a Wilson 2000 on a front fender mount, about 8.5 feet from the ground to the tip of the antenna).

Being that CB is significantly lower frequency than GMRS, there are times it may work better (such as around trees with lots of leaves or in areas with hills). And at this point, there's enough "good" gear out there for not a whole lot of money that it's worth having if you've got the space for it and aren't running 10M HAM gear or something, considering there's no licensing costs to worry about.

 

[Ray_G]

I didn't go for the big MXT400 (couldn't justify the price relative to how much I use the thing). But the MXT115 with a big Comet SBB-5 antenna on the front fender is fairly capable. The range on the (ancient tech) CB is respectable too if you can handle running a big antenna (I run a Wilson 2000 on a front fender mount, about 8.5 feet from the ground to the tip of the antenna).

Being that CB is significantly lower frequency than GMRS, there are times it may work better (such as around trees with lots of leaves or in areas with hills). And at this point, there's enough "good" gear out there for not a whole lot of money that it's worth having if you've got the space for it and aren't running 10M HAM gear or something, considering there's no licensing costs to worry about.

You highlight what I find confounds many casual users; CB as an HF radio really requires a good antenna configuration (not just SWR). For many that is difficult to achieve depending on terrain being wheeled in, and level of expertise they have in comms. I'm biased by a background growing up using HF for long haul comms (with purpose built antenna arrays), VHF for shorter range, UHF for talking mostly to aircraft and UHF (SAT) for long haul comms when channels were allocated. (In the old days, all being carried by different folks-a problem newer radios mitigate by combining).

When I take that application to a truck that gets wheeled in dense terrain on the east coast it is why I never found CB to be all that adequate or satisfying, and thus moved up to HAM that few seem to want to explore and now landed with GMRS that seems to be seeing an uptick given convenience/ease of setup/capability (plus I think the expansion of the 'overland' world plays in too).
r-
Ray